Financing Poor Relief in the Small Lower Rhine Town of Kalkar in the Late Middle Ages

1 Introduction: Poverty and Poor Relief in the Late Middle Ages

During the Early and High Middle Ages, caring for the sick and the poor was a task performed exclusively by the Church, especially by monasteries. By the Late Middle Ages this task had already passed into the hands of urban authorities to a considerable degree – in the small to medium-sized towns of the Lower Rhine region as well as elsewhere. ^[1]

In the Middle Ages, poverty was a multifaceted concept, and accordingly, people were also considered poor if they were worse off than their peers and unable to maintain an adequate lifestyle. ^[2] However, the following addresses only the care of people in existential destitution, who absolutely depended on support. Throughout the Middle Ages and still in the early modern period, efforts were certainly made to alleviate their greatest need, but no structural social changes took place in favour of the lowest classes. ^[3]

Not only in the Lower Rhine region did the Late Middle Ages bring about a stronger separation of different groups of poor individuals. Previously paupers, strangers, pilgrims and the ailing had all been cared for indiscriminately in hospitals. Only lepers had been accommodated separately. ^[4] This practice changed notably during the 15^th century. Increasingly, residential facilities were founded for the so-called shame-faced poor (Hausarme), i.e. paupers who did not beg and lived in their own lodgings. ^[5] Apart from widows and orphans, they were mostly working poor, especially unskilled day labourers, who provided for themselves as long as they were healthy and strong and their labour was in demand. In general, they were hardly able to put aside any savings. ^[6] Finally, during the 16^th century, a few towns in the Lower Rhine region founded orphanages and plague houses. ^[7]

During the same period, the perception of poverty changed. More and more, the poor were assessed subject to various, often rather strict criteria concerning their lifestyle, according to which the decision as to whether they were entitled to receive assistance or not was made. ^[8] Vagrants who were able to work, the socalled strong beggars, professional beggars and, in some towns, strangers, would, in general, not be provided for. This increasingly became the case, ^[9] and is, for instance, clearly formulated in a resolution from 1428 regarding the distribution of alms by the St Spiritus Hospital in Wesel. ^[10] The authorities’ efforts to regulate customary donation practices did not always meet with the approval of monasteries and the alms-giving population, who regarded charity as a duty and at the same time as an investment in their salvation. ^[11] However, in the hospitals, which stretched in a tight network across the Lower Rhine region, itinerant beggars (herumziehende Bettler) could find free board and lodging for a very limited time, usually for one or two nights. As a rule, only the sick were allowed to stay longer. ^[12] These persons could not pay for their meals, their lodging and sometimes their care or their funeral, so that the poor relief administration had to generate the necessary financial means. ^[13] Since spiritual care was taken just as seriously as board and accommodation, this included the upkeep of the hospital’s chapel, which, in Kalkar, boasted two altars with daily services dedicated to its patron saints, St George and St Barbara. ^[14]

When begging was banned in larger cities, authorised beggars were issued with badges, and supervisory institutions were set up to determine and verify their need. ^[15] Poor relief in smaller towns such as Kalkar could seemingly still be managed in a less bureaucratic way in the Late Middle Ages. In the somewhat bigger Clevish town of Wesel, however, the poor, who were entitled to receive donations from the St Spiritus Hospital, were given badges (teken) as early as the middle of the 15^th century. ^[16] The sources for Kalkar do not indicate that foreign beggars were a major problem at this time. The ordinance for the administration of the poor’s funds, issued in Kalkar in 1443, at least emphasises that the usual care for poor strangers in the hospital was not to be reduced and that the hospital building was to be kept in good condition. Nevertheless, the same ordinance shows a preference for the old-established, non-begging shamefaced poor. ^[17]

Ensuring well-functioning and efficient care for the poor was a complex matter for various reasons – not least because of the large number of people involved. ^[18] In a small late medieval town, only a tiny circle of people with the necessary skills were able to fulfil the requirements for its administration. They not only had to consider the respective needs of different recipients but also the instructions made by the numerous donators. ^[19] The work of employees and volunteers had to be organised, and finally, they had to present their accounts to the auditors transparently and precisely. ^[20]

Difficulties arose due to the sometimes heavily fluctuating number of paupers. Particularly in times of crisis, when many people were affected by poverty at the same time, the competitive situation between different recipients intensified. Therefore, when resources were limited, the poor relief wardens had to make difficult decisions, such as reducing the number of rations or the amount to be distributed or excluding some of the paupers from assistance. ^[21] In acute emergencies, the task of quickly organising help for an often great number of those affected was equally challenging. Apart from times of epidemics, this could become necessary in the Lower Rhine region when the frequent floods damaged houses and destroyed crops. ^[22]

Apart from the just and correct distribution of donations and relief supplies, the most important task of the poor relief wardens was to protect the poor’s assets, that is the buildings and funds provided for the care of the poor. The wardens’ task included ensuring the reliable and regular receipt of as much income as possible, preventing waste and ideally reducing costs. ^[23] This could be done by investing endowed sums of money in annuities or by selling surplus income in kind, donated items, inherited inventory, self-produced goods or leftovers from the poor relief administration’s own economy.

This study first takes a look at poor relief in the Lower Rhine region and, in particular, in the small to medium-sized town of Kalkar (2). The next section (3) is dedicated to the prerequisites of successful and efficient care for the poor. The focus here lies on organisation, bookkeeping and continuous optimisation. Section (4) presents the various sources of finance and revenues that provided the income intended for the poor, while section (5) looks at the composition of income and expenses and (6) takes the poor relief administration’s own usage of credit practices and its dealing with debtors and shortages into account. Finally, (7) provides a brief summary.

Throughout the text, the following abbreviations for currencies are applied: guilder = fl, shilling = ß, albus = alb, kromstert = kr, groten = gr, penny = ₰; and for measures: ml = malter, bs = bushel, sp = spint. Regarding sources, pages and folia in square brackets indicate that no page or folio numbers exist in the source concerned.

2 Poor Relief in Late Medieval Lower Rhine Cities, particularly in Kalkar

Since most cities of the Lower Rhine region had only been founded late in the Middle Ages, few monastic orders, whose rules would have required them to nurse the sick and to provide for strangers and pilgrims (like those of the military orders), had settled within their walls. ^[24] For this reason, most of the towns’ hospitals were in the custody of the municipal administration from the start, as was the case with the hospital in Kalkar as well as the hospitals in Rees and Cleves, in Uedem, Sonsbeck, Geldern or Doesburg and Goch. ^[25] During the 15^th century, private initiatives, which reveal an enormous commitment on the part of individual benefactors, emerged as an alternative. ^[26] Mostly, these were small residential complexes where each inhabitant was housed separately and enjoyed a certain degree of privacy. ^[27]

Due to its average size, late medieval Kalkar is a good example to shed some light on municipal poor relief. Founded in 1230 by count Dietrich VI of Cleves, the small or smaller medium-sized town had a population of approximately 2,900 to 3,000 inhabitants around 1500. ^[28] Its spiritual welfare was entrusted to the parish of St Nicolai. ^[29] Like the large church building consecrated in 1450, the new town hall, completed in 1446, conveyed the self-confidence of Kalkar’s wealthy citizenship. ^[30] The town’s economic life was dominated by the grain trade, cloth production and beer brewing. ^[31] An important part of the religious and social life of the citizens of Kalkar took place in the four brotherhoods of marksmen (Schützenbruderschaften) ^[32] and the numerous fraternities, of which the confraternities of St Mary and probably of St Nicholas can be traced back to the middle of the 14^th century. ^[33]

Stationary care for the sick and poor was provided in the municipal hospital, which is first documented in 1319, and in the leprosarium, which was located outside the town, but close to a main road, to facilitate the collection of alms. ^[34] The capacity of either institution is unknown. Besides, until the end of the 15^th century, 13 lodgings were available in the Large Almshouse (Großer Armen-hof, also called Peter Heysen close) that was founded in 1441. From around 1500, five more lodgings were added in the Small Almshouse (Kleiner Armenhof, also known as Sunte Laurens hoff or Sir Daems close), which was founded and financed solely by the wealthy vicar Adam van Haelt. ^[35]

In total, until 1491/1492, the city of Kalkar granted prebends (Pfründen) to usually 30 of the poorest householders – the inhabitants of the almshouse included. According to the ordinance for the poor (of 1443), there were to be between 20 and 30 beneficiaries as required. ^[36] However, as 30 recipients are consistently mentioned in the existing accounts, the number was probably somewhere between just right and hardly adequate from the beginning, but later clearly no longer sufficient to provide for Kalkar’s shamefaced poor. Therefore, the poor relief administration financed three more benefices or prebends (Pfründen) in the course of the accounting year 1491/1492. ^[37] During the Late Middle Ages, Kalkar’s hospital did not sell prebends to citizens who wanted to provide for their old age as was often the case in other cities (see for example the essay of Jaco Zuijderduijn on Amsterdam in this volume). ^[38]

In addition to the stationary support in the buildings dedicated to serve the poor, there were other, mobile services subordinate to Kalkar’s poor relief administration, which regularly distributed corn and bread, most notably the bread donation given by Arnt Snoick in 1398. ^[39] Cloth was regularly issued to Kalkar’s paupers from a separate foundation, endowed by Herman van Vuerden and his wife Mechtilt in 1450, with originally about 25, later 22 golden fl per annum at its disposal. This endowment was managed on behalf of the mayor and the lay judges, who increased the funds over time. ^[40] Given that cloth donations have been documented since 1445, ^[41] this foundation, which consisted mainly of pensions in Sonsbeck, ^[42] must have been a significant amelioration towards that purpose.

The registers of the city’s cloth donations give an impression of the recipients and the number of poor people in Kalkar. According to the first register, in 1445, paupers lived all over the town, apart from the immediate market area. ^[43] In 1445, cloth was given to at least 155, possibly more, individuals in the town and a few outside. In 1475, between 90 and 105 people, approximately, received a donation of cloth, and in 1480 roughly 111 to 121. ^[44] Although these registers provide clues, it is difficult to estimate how many of Kalkar’s inhabitants were poor or were considered poor enough to want some additional support – especially as the number of paupers was not static and the cloth registers are in parts very vague. However, it was certainly less than a proportion of one to two thirds of the town’s inhabitants, as was apparently often the case in larger cities. ^[45]

Neither the Kalkar records nor those of other Clevish towns provide information on all aspects of poor relief, particularly not on the day-to-day practice. The situation is much better with regard to finances and the legal protection of the poor’s assets. Apart from deeds concerning annuity-contracts or the acquisition of real estate, foundations or executions of wills, ^[46] the most informative sources are those produced by the poor administration itself: its accounts from 1463, ^[47] later the accounts of the orphanage from 1582 onwards, ^[48] the registers and accounts of the cloth donations, ^[49] as well as the ordinance for the administration of poor relief from 1443 with its detailed regulations (see section 3). In addition, the church accounts ^[50] and to a lesser degree the accounts of the fraternities of St Mary’s (Beatae Mariae Virginis) ^[51] and St Anne’s ^[52] as well as the city accounts ^[53] contain information on financing and generating income for the poor as well as on building projects connected with poor relief. ^[54] The picture can be completed by including further sources: Last wills ^[55] provide some insights into the personalities of benefactors, and even the records of Kalkar’s lay judges (Schöffenprotokolle), ^[56] which are as a whole not very informative with regard to poor relief, contain some useful entries and details.

In spite of city administrations increasingly taking poor relief into their own hands, additional assistance from various sides remained in practice and was urgently needed as well. Together, it might have been more or less sufficient at least for the respective town’s or city’s inhabitants. ^[57] Non-municipal poor relief services will be addressed here briefly with regard to Kalkar, in order to illustrate their importance and scale. Small donations made spontaneously by citizens everyday – usually in the form of victuals or change – are not verifiable in the case of Kalkar and are therefore hard to calculate, but they must have been considerable as there was a moral obligation to give alms. ^[58] In addition to donations made directly to the poor, including many smaller annual pensions, several donors and testators named the poor as second choice heirs or substitute recipients of legacies. ^[59] Particularly letters of endowment for anniversaries, masses and memorial services often contain a clause stating that in the event of non-fulfilment, the endowment or annuity should be used for another purpose, often for the poor, because their intercessory prayer was considered nearly as beneficial as that of a priest. ^[60] However, it can be assumed that the poor rarely came into the possession of such bequests. In some other cases, the poor were bequeathed with everything that remained of an estate, after the specified legacies had been honoured. ^[61]

Alms in the form of produce or cash came form the Church, too. Apart from alms boxes that were usually found in and around church buildings, ^[62] apparently, the parish of Kalkar had a kind of fund available from which spontaneous aid could be provided, the almisskorff voir die ghemeyn armen. ^[63] Kalkar’s confraternities cannot be identified as actively engaged in charity until the 16^th century, ^[64] although it can be assumed that donations to the poor were made on certain occasions, like the funeral masses of deceased guild members, or on the anniversary of the guild’s patron saint. Only the statutes of the fraternity of St Mary from 1347 claim that it was one of their tasks to prevent the impoverishment of their members, provided that sufficient funds were at hand. ^[65] However, their accounts contain no details of such expenditures. ^[66] Brotherhoods in other cities were much more involved in actively caring for the poor. ^[67] The role of the Kalkar monasteries and the extent of their participation in charity is difficult to assess, as no account books and few other sources have survived. ^[68] However, all three convents were obliged to make donations on the basis of spiritual endowments. ^[69]

Along with the municipal charity, the Church remained an important resource for the city’s poor. The parish managed pious foundations that were, at times, very extensive. As those were meant to secure the donors’ salvation, these, in most cases, were primarily intended to finance liturgical services and only partially to benefit the poor. Therefore, they continued to be addressed to ecclesiastical recipients, and the stipulated donations were spent by the clergy. ^[70] The mistrust of citizens and residents towards Church and municipal social and charitable organisations that can be observed elsewhere ^[71] was not yet recognisable in Kalkar, even during the 16^th century. ^[72]

The Church was also responsible for the proper distribution of the small sums given as a reward for those who attended memorial services and prayed for the donors. ^[73] Such donations, which in total amounted to a considerable sum, were part of most memorial foundations, which were usually long-term endowments financed from annuities. In most cases, the sources do not even mention almsgiving, which was probably always an integral part of the funeral service or the celebration of the thirtieth day after a death. ^[74] In 1464/1465, the Kalkar parish church, for example, gave out donations worth 2 fl, probably mainly bread, on 26 stipulated days, totalling 52 fl. Rewards for attending church services could be earned on far more occasions. ^[75]

3 Preconditions of Efficient Poor Relief

Since managing poor relief was a complex matter, this section touches upon the prerequisites, namely the practices that were supposed to guarantee its smooth functioning in order to prevent the lack of necessary means, i.e. a precise statutory framework, which was essential to secure the various assets and funds, an efficient organisation, accurate accounting and continuous optimisation. For this demanding and time-consuming task, well trained and capable people were needed who, in addition, could dispose of their own time independently. ^[76] In the Lower Rhine region, basically every permanent institution for the poor or the sick assigned one or usually two individuals as wardens, called Provisoren, Verwahrer or Vormünder, who were responsible for the observance of rules and procedures. ^[77] They also had to closely monitor finances and prevent abuse. ^[78] Within the small towns of the Lower Rhine region only a small group of men could be appointed to this office. They were not only capable to do the accounting for the poor but for other bodies like the Church or the fraternities as well. ^[79] As with some of the church wardens, several of the poor relief administrators stayed in office for several years. ^[80] Men chosen for any one of those offices were obliged to take on their task. ^[81] On the other hand, the position of a poor relief warden was a prestigious one. ^[82]

In 1443, when the administration of the Large Almshouse was transferred to Kalkar’s newly reorganised poor relief administration, the above mentioned municipal ordinance for the poor was issued at the same time. ^[83] This collection of rules set the framework within which the two responsible wardens, who could be reelected annually if necessary, were to carry out their tasks to the best of their knowledge. ^[84] They were to make absolutely certain that payments were received, that available funds were distributed correctly and wisely, and that the assets of the individual foundations and funds remained distinguishable, even after their administrative organisations had been merged. For instance, the wardens had to make sure that the ample bread donations given by Arnt Snoick in 1398 would continue to be carried out as documented. When the ordinance expressly decreed that the care of strangers and the sick in the hospital was not to be neglected in favour of helping the shame-faced poor, it aimed at guaranteeing that no group of paupers should be disadvantaged. ^[85]

The poor relief wardens’ tasks – assisted by the mayor and his closest advisors or assistants (called gesellen) – included choosing the 20 to 30 paupers who were to receive a prebend. They had to select them from Kalkar’s inhabitants who did not beg, who had always worked hard and lived piously, but had fallen ill, grown old or were impaired by an accident. These chosen shamefaced poor were also to benefit from the surpluses of the hospital’s income, if such existed. ^[86] Besides, the wardens had to monitor the beneficiaries’ conduct closely: Those who behaved inappropriately were deprived of their benefice. Those living in the almshouse had to leave their lodging and all their possessions. Every holder of a prebend also had to promise that their estate went to the poor relief administration after their death. ^[87] This way, all beneficiaries returned at least a fraction of what they had received. The poor relief wardens’ organisational responsibilities also included hiring and supervising their own permanent staff, delegating tasks to those inhabitants of the almshouses, who were able to work, and to volunteers, who were indispensable in the care of the poor. They also awarded contracts to artisans and merchants at reasonable prices. ^[88]

The ordinance of 1443 also prescribed numerous measures to secure the poor’s financial basis: These include the obligatory annual reporting of the poor relief wardens in front of the mayor and other city council commissioners, as was customary in other towns of the Lower Rhine region and elsewhere as well. ^[89] Strict time limits were set: for example, the old wardens and their successors had to jointly settle all debts within one month of taking office. ^[90] Furthermore, the wardens were not allowed to invest donated money autonomously; they were required to take advice from the mayor and his gesellen. If income, which was supposed to be received regularly, was not paid on time, the wardens were to demand its payment persistently. ^[91] The tenants of the estates managed by the poor relief wardens lost all right to their leasehold after only one month’s delay in payment. ^[92] The same applied if they did not properly maintain the estates. ^[93] The sources show that sometimes a great deal of effort and expenditure had to be made in order to actually receive the income to which the poor were entitled and which had been budgeted for. ^[94] But if, despite careful management, the revenues were too low, the wardens were to ask for donations. ^[95] Since offering to the poor was a means to invest in one’s social capital, this was a sensible strategy to avoid serious shortages. ^[96]

Regulations comparable to those in Kalkar for the fair distribution of funds and the securing of income also applied to the poor relief administration of Cleves. ^[97] As their sovereign, the Duke of Cleves confirmed the ordinances for the poor of both towns. In his charters, he assured the wardens of all his bailiffs’ support if they had to demand and seize defaulting payments or enforce the claims of the poor to over-indebted property or houses. ^[98] Since 1425, the city law of Wesel allowed seizures by the beadle (Gerichtsbote). In Kalkar, this had even been the case from 1387 onwards. ^[99]

Another important precondition of efficient poor relief was professional accounting in order to maintain an overview of the regular receipt of revenues. ^[100] A clear arrangement of the accounts was advantageous and especially important in the case of poor relief: in everyday business, during the annual audits or when something needed to be looked up in older records. ^[101] The wardens often worked with lists prepared in advance. Paid and unpaid amounts and in some cases even partial sums, paid little by little, were added and marked with specific symbols during the course of a year. This allowed the poor relief wardens to easily keep track of outstanding amounts (see fig. 1 and 2). Here, for example, a cross symbol marked every amount completely paid, a half cross or an angle marked a sum partially paid and no symbol at all indicated a defaulted payment. ^[102]

Fig. 1

Concept of Kalkar’s Poor Relief Wardens’ Account Book for Corn Rents, 1517/1518. Source: StA Kalkar, Ki 83, fol. [5v].

Fig. 2

Account Book of the St Spiritus Hospital, Wesel (1471/1472). Source: StA Wesel, A 11, no. 709, fol. 6r.

Naturally, not only in Kalkar, administrative procedures were continuously optimised. ^[103] Between 1465 and 1473, poor relief in Kalkar underwent a reorganisation of its accounting by dividing the financial responsibilities into two separate areas with separate account books, each managed by one of the two wardens. ^[104] From 1475/1476 onwards, at least initially, they were strictly separated according to monetary income and revenues in kind. ^[105] Besides, after several attempts to identify the most advantageous date for the annual audit, in 1465, the accounting period was exceptionally extended by three months. From then on, the audit was to take place regularly at the beginning of May. ^[106]

As one prerequisite of meticulous record keeping, wardens had to be able to convert numerous currencies as well as measures and weights. ^[107] Apart from the beginning and the end of the accounting year in question and the name of the responsible warden, the most important currency relations and other relevant information were neatly noted at the top of the account. This offered the most important details at a glance, helping to save time and avoid errors. As an example, the introductory text of the pension and rent account of 1491/1492 shows that the wardens had to calculate with Rhenish guilders, stubers, old schilde, marks, pennies, shillings, kromsterts and grotens and that they converted everything into fiat money. ^[108] Here, Johann Coppertz noted that he was the warden in that year responsible for the rents, pensions and other income in money. He stated that the accounting year in question had begun on the first day of May 1491 and ended on the last day of April in the following year. Then he went on to list the relevant currencies and currency relations: Opboeren mijns, Johan Coppertz, van den gasthuyss ind der armen renten ind vervall, angaende op Meydach, anno etc. XCI°, ind uytgaende op Meyavent, anno XCII; den Rijnschen gulden ad XXXIIII stuver, den alden schilt voir anderhalven sulcken gulden ind I stuver, den marck ad XX stuver; XII ₰ off III groit voir eynen ß, den ß voir II alb; ind dair en t’eynden die partes ind summa lateris ilcken gulden ad LX kromstert. ^[109]

Finally, a compilation of the legal titles, i.e. the deeds and annuity letters which the poor relief administration possessed, was necessary in order to ensure they could be used on a day-to-day basis. Such a collection of the poor’s charters in the form of a manuscript, a cartulary, made it easy to keep track of incoming payments and payment obligations and to keep an eye on when to expect the income. Kalkar’s cartulary did not survive, but the accounts show that one existed, was used and regularly updated. ^[110]

4 Financing Municipal Poor Relief: Generating Revenues

As mentioned above, one of the tasks of Kalkar’s late medieval poor relief wardens was managing the poor’s assets and generating the necessary means to provide for the town’s paupers. This section examines from which sources the poor’s income originated. Their most important kind of revenue were pensions (Renten) from annuities and perpetuities, long-term credit contracts, which procured regular annual or semi-annual payments of a stipulated amount and were bought with a capital sum that sometimes could be redeemed. ^[111] Another significant part of the poor’s income came from rents paid from let houses and leaseholds. In addition, they generated income on their own estates as well as in the hospital and the almshouses. Time and again they received donations in kind, and additionally from the sale of the deceased beneficiaries’ estates. The last and presumably the smallest amount came from collections and collection boxes.

4.1 Annuities and Perpetuities

Provisions for the poor were financed to a large extent by perpetuities (see fig. 3). Everywhere, not only in Kalkar, numerous annuities were given to the poor as legacies over the years in order to support those in need. At the same time they were an investment in the donor’s salvation. ^[112] A good example, albeit not from Kalkar, is the poor relief foundation of the Wesel citizen Griet van den Bleke, who donated 25 individual perpetuities in 1388. ^[113] The 24 monetary pensions and one single grain pension were intended to finance the distribution of bread, meat, white bread, herrings and shoes to the poor in general and to the shamefaced poor on defined dates throughout the year, respectively.

Fig. 3

Income of the Poor Relief Administration in Kalkar, 1476/1477. Note: All amounts and quantities are converted into grotens. The fiat money used in these accounts: 1 fl = 60 kr, 1 kr = 12 gr, 1 gr = 4 ₰. However, ₰ appear only as an exception and are rounded up. Source: BAM, PfA Kalkar, K 39, A-R 1476/1477 (rent), fol. [1r]–[3v], and ibid. (corn), fol. [1r]–[5r].

Many of these donations in kind clearly show that the founders recognised a specific shortage and intended to meet it. As in 1467, when, apart from candles for services in the chapel of Kalkar’s monastery, an annual sum was set aside for the poor in general, and another for candles to be lit in winter when the poor pilgrims in the town’s hospital ate their supper and went to bed. ^[114] When Hilcken van den Hoen bequeathed 50 fl to Kalkar’s poor in order to buy an annuity, she disposed that it was to be spent on their firewood. ^[115] The 28 fl and 8 stuber, bequeathed by Lijssken aen gen Eynde and received in 1488/1489, were meant to finance an annuity to buy firewood as well. ^[116] And a third bequest, given by Mrs Hellinx and collateralised with property on Wildenberg hill, was intended for the same purpose. ^[117]

Donating perpetuities was the most common and simple way either for the donor or the wardens to ensure a regular receipt of revenues in the long run – and, apart from self-generated income and rents from agricultural land, the only highly reliable method. It was important to have these revenues and endowments confirmed in a charter and secured against defaults: loans to private individuals were therefore collateralised, usually by means of real estate, from which the outstanding amount could be seized. ^[118] In the case of cities and the Church, the securities could either consist of real estate or revenues, or guarantors could be provided; sometimes no collateral was mentioned at all. ^[119]

In Kalkar, for example, a loan was given to the city council for an annual interest of 3 Rhenish fl, due at Easter. In 1483, it occurred to the poor relief wardens that, although this annuity had been paid for a certain number of years, up to that date, no annuity letter had been issued. Once such a contract had been written and sealed by the lay judges, it was entered into the poor relief administration’s cartulary as well. The pension was covered with all the city revenues and real estate. In the event of non-payment, the amount due could be seized after the grace period of a fortnight. ^[120]

In many cases, annuities consisted of money, but frequently they were also paid in kind in the form of grain or wax. ^[121] Certainly, the majority of these pensions came from endowments, although in most cases this can no longer be proven. Especially during and shortly after their foundation, the sovereigns and the nobles who lived in the area surrounding a city were often the first to strongly support hospitals and institutions for the poor financially. ^[122] Further annuities were either donated over the years or acquired through endowed capital and, less frequently, through earned income. ^[123] When endowed capital had to be invested on a mandatory basis or when surpluses had been generated, the administrators of the poor’s funds provided for regular future income by selling annuities. At the same time, they acted as moneylenders for the institutions and the population of their town as well. ^[124]

Kalkar’s poor relief wardens, assisted by the mayor and his advisors, made every effort to invest the poor’s money profitably. For example, in 1479/1480, by order of the mayor, they lent Henrick van den Hoen 75 golden Rhenish fl, but only temporarily, until an opportunity arose to buy an advantageous perpetuity. Until then, Henrick had to pay daily interest at an unspecified rate. When, eventually, a perpetuity could be purchased, he had to be given a fortnight’s notice. ^[125]

In 1491/1492, the poor relief wardens were rather successful economically: a surplus of 685 fl was recorded in the grain account of warden Peter van Straelen alone. Therefore, he was not only able to recover his outstanding debts from the poor, in addition, he bought an annuity from Johan Peelen for 200 Rhenish gold fl, each consisting of 35 stubers, which corresponded to 350 fl in fiat money. He had previously obtained the mayor’s consent, as the ordinance for the poor required. For this amount, Johan Peelen paid a pension of 12 Rhenish fl (this corresponds to the relatively high interest rate of 6 per cent), explicitly no other coins, annually on St James’ Day from the following year onwards; he was granted the right to redeem the loan. Peter van Straelen acquired another annuity with the mayor’s consent for 80 Rhenish golden fl, also at 35 stubers each, from the parish church. The payment from this annuity (4 of the same Rhenish golden fl – at an interest rate of 5 per cent) was due at Martini. ^[126]

In addition to annuities in money, Kalkar’s poor relief wardens bought grain annuities as well. In 1472, for example, they bought an annual income of 3 Clevish ml of rye from land in Qualburg. ^[127] The importance of income in the form of grain annuities for the care of the poor is also demonstrated by an entry in the accounts of 1490/1491: When Katrijn van Vuyrden wanted to redeem the annual pension of 6 ml of rye her house was encumbered with, the wardens first obtained the approval of the mayor and his gesellen. In addition, they stipulated that Katrijn’s house was to come into the possession of the poor after her death. ^[128] As shown further below, the poor relief wardens now and again showed a certain amount of creativity in generating new annuities for the poor.

5 Financing Poor Relief: Composition of Revenues and Expenses

This section focuses mainly on the structure of the income and expenditure of Kalkar’s poor relief administration in the accounting year 1476/1477. In order to put the figures from this year into a broader context, some data from other years are also considered. However, some of the many difficulties presented by the sources need to be discussed before. The first problems concern grain: Firstly, to determine the part of grain revenues of the total amount of income, it is necessary to convert grain quantities into monetary value. Unfortunately, Kalkar’s poor relief wardens only now and then mention the price for different types of grain separately. ^[245] Secondly, grain prices – as is well known – do not remain constant over the course of a year. ^[246] Thirdly, the quality of grain should be taken into account, which is also not possible in the case of Kalkar’s poor relief accounts. ^[247] In the absence of alternatives, the mean of the different prices that the wardens provide for the year in question or the year before or after has been applied. ^[248]

Another problem concerns the correct designation of the different kinds of payments. Often, it is not possible to determine whether an amount was paid as interest or a pension from an annuity or as rent for a leasehold or a house. The accounts only sometimes provide such detailed information. In consequence – and this is not completely satisfactory – all entries had to be labelled as rent. However, this procedure follows the account books between 1473/1474 and 1488/1489, which only distinguish between pensions and interest respectively that was collected inside or outside the city (which they sum up as either der armer renthen bynnen Kalker/geltthijns buyten Kalker, ^[249] geltrenten ^[250] or gelttyns ^[251]). A direct comparison with the earlier accounts is not possible, as those do not clearly differentiate between income from within Kalkar and revenues from outside the town, whereas the accounts from 1489/1490 onwards list all revenues in money from within and outside Kalkar separately, but not the grain income; they also do not distinguish between pensions, rents or interest.

As a final difficulty, it should be mentioned that in their bookkeeping the poor relief wardens sometimes split income, but also wages or other expenses paid, so that part of them can be found in the rent accounts and part in the grain accounts. This was the case, for example, in the financial year 1491/1492 with the wages for transporting the beech wood needed for the manufacture of coffins. ^[252] In such cases, the amounts from both account books must be added up in order to make calculations. This procedure, on which the accounts do not always comment, poses a problem when only one of the two account books has survived and it is therefore not possible to check whether other costs may have been connected with an entry or whether there was more income of the same type.

To convey an idea of how much of the total income of Kalkar’s poor relief came from annuities (Renten), rents (Miete, Zins, thyns, pacht, huyshueren) and from other sources, as well as to understand the composition of the wardens’ expenses, their accounts for the financial year 1476/1477 contain sufficient information to allow at least a fairly accurate calculation (see fig. 3 and 4). Since this section aims at illustrating what the poor relief administration earned and spent in the course of a year, the diagram showing the revenue of 1476/1477 does not include the surplus money from the previous accounting year amounting to 64 fl, 55 kr and ½ gr nor the 78 coffins and additional material for coffin manufacture, the grain in stock from the previous year, nor the value of the donated bed that was not sold but brought to the leprosarium. ^[253]

Fig. 4

Expenses of the Poor Relief Administration of Kalkar, 1476/1477. Note: All amounts and quantities are converted into grotens. The fiat money used in these accounts: 1 fl = 60 kr, 1 kr = 12 gr, 1 gr = 4 ₰. Source: BAM, PfA Kalkar, K 39, A-R 1476/1477 (rent), fol. [4v]–[10r], and ibid. (corn), fol. [1r]–[6r].

The accounts for the year 1476/1477 show that the payments made in the form of money or grain to the poor amounted to about 81 per cent. This part of the revenue was a more or less regularly generated income. Considering only the rents and pensions paid in money from real estate or houses within Kalkar, 76 fl, 27 kr and about 4 gr were paid, while rents and pensions from property outside the city amounted to 57 fl, 1 kr and 8 gr. In total, that is 133 fl and 29 kr in revenues. ^[254] In 1476/1477, other income for the poor came from the sale of real estate and the right of use by a neighbour (37 fl and 57 kr), proceeds from coffin production (13 fl and 27 ½ kr), the sale of surplus barrels and by-products from the brewing process (2 fl and 19 kr), from donations (53 kr) and the sale of deceased persons’ estates (37 ½ kr). Apart from this, there were the pensions and rents paid in grain (worth 112 fl, 3 kr and 9 gr) and proceeds from the sale of grain (1 fl and 15 kr).

The composition of income remained quite constant over the years, but, on the whole, revenues increased over time. Between 1473 and 1488, the income from pensions and rents in money from within Kalkar rose from just over 73 fl per year to almost 106 fl per year; payments from outside the town increased from over 31 fl to over 67 fl. ^[255] In the accounting year of 1482/1483, Johan Goessen, one of the wardens of Kalkar’s poor relief, collected 83 fl, 25 kr and 6 gr from rents and pensions in Kalkar, and 61 fl, 26 kr and 13 gr from rents and pensions on property outside the city; thus, he received a total of 144 fl, 52 kr and 7 gr. ^[256] In 1497/1498, payments from inside Kalkar amounted to 140 fl and 13 kr, and from outside to 93 fl, 27 kr and 3 gr (133 fl, 27 kr and 9 gr, if we include 40 fl that were paid to redeem an annuity or a rent). ^[257] In detail, naturally, variances can be observed: Prices and grain revenues depended on the harvest’s quality and quantity, and income could rise due to generous donations, the sale of coffins rose enormously in times of plague, ^[258] and so on.

In the financial year 1476/1477, the poor relief wardens spent two thirds of all expenses on the needs of the poor. Some 13 per cent of expenses were used to pay for life annuities; nearly 7.5 per cent were spent on wages and material for repairs, ^[259] while 4.6 per cent went towards administrative matters. ^[260] Investment in material, especially wood and nails for the hospital’s coffin production, amounted to nearly 4 per cent of all expenses. Rents that had to be paid by the poor relief wardens summed up to just over 2.5 per cent, while some 1.2 per cent of expenses were used to settle debts. Less than 1 per cent had to be spent on fulfilling obligations that had been stipulated by the donors of memorial endowments.

6 Usage of Credit Practices and Dealing with Shortages and Debts

The poor relief wardens used different types of credit that were common in everyday life, such as chalking up sums when victuals or smaller items were needed. For example, the hospital’s mass wine was bought in small quantities, sometimes from different merchants, using tallies or notebooks to keep record. ^[261] Tallies could also provide information on the consumption of the buckwheat in stock when fattening pigs. In this case, it was used for internal accounting. ^[262] These practices facilitated bookkeeping, reduced the size of the accounts and the cost of accounting, but were not necessarily a sign of scarcity.

However, when revenues proved to be insufficient or in times of liquidity shortages, the wardens had to resort to rather unpleasant measures, i.e. the payment and distribution of annuities, wages and even alms was reduced or postponed to a later date. For example, in 1471, the wardens noted that in the last eight years they had not paid a rent of barley that Coinrit Aildmerckt was entitled to. ^[263] In 1483, Heilwich van Groll was only paid 1 of the 10 Rhenish fl that she was to receive each year. With a certain amount of regret, Pouwel then Have, the poor relief warden who was in charge in the following financial year, noted that he had no choice but to pay the outstanding 9 fl in addition to the regular rent. ^[264] Since in 1482/1483 the expenses exceeded the poor’s income and the responsible warden, Johan Goessen, seems not to have been able to afford advance payment from his own means, the reason for this deferred payment becomes clear. ^[265] In the same financial year, Johan Goessen had to defer a number of other payments: Johan, the provider of hops (hoppenman), was only paid in 1483 or 1484; and since he was entitled to 7 fl and 48 kr, he, in turn, might have fallen on hard times financially. ^[266] In 1477, Geess van Vuerden had to wait more than six months before she was paid for cloth she had provided for the municipal cloth donations. ^[267] And in 1494/1495, the barrel maker was paid for the work he had done over the previous two years. ^[268] When the poor relief administration failed to meet its own rent obligations, the poor’s property could also be confiscated. This happened in 1491/1492, when the bailiff of Cleves had the poor’s land Auf dem Dam in Altkalkar seized for unpaid rent. ^[269]

As the care for the poor could only run smoothly if there were sufficient reserves of food, especially grain, the wardens adhered to the requirements set down in the poor relief ordinance and strictly ensured that this was always the case. The accounts show that at the time of the annual audit, there was always a sufficient stock of grain with which the new (or the old) warden could continue to work seamlessly. In cases of doubt, stocks were checked in order to maintain a precise overview of what was at the poor’s disposal – as in 1497/1498, when it was unclear how much barley had been used for malt production. For this reason, the exact amount of malt and barley actually available to the poor was meticulously measured. ^[270]

However, in the case of monetary funds, which were not quite so important for the immediate provision to the poor, the wardens sometimes had to advance their own money, in addition to deferring payments. ^[271] The account for the year 1483/1484 even seems to imply that the poor relief wardens were expected to compensate for deficits from their own resources not just temporarily, but permanently. This is at least the impression conveyed by an entry stating that the departing warden only received part of the amount he had paid in advance, the return of which he had expressly requested. ^[272] Social pressure of this kind may have contributed further to keeping the poor relief administration solvent.

In addition, when money was tight, the wardens could revert to different other means to solve this problem. For example, in 1492/1493, when the poor relief administration was unable to pay Johan Dijckman’s rent in full due to lack of money, he was partially paid in kind, namely with malt and wheat. ^[273]

If necessary, an adjustment of the donation practice had to be made by reducing either the amount distributed or the number of donation dates. This happened if revenues from a foundation were not received in the amount expected, and certainly if the number of poor people grew too large. In Kalkar, this is documented for the donation of bread, founded by Arnt Snoick, which was distributed in the hospital on the six feasts of the Virgin Mary. ^[274] Although Arnt Snoick had transferred 12 to 13 morgens of land (in Altkalkar, outside Kalkar’s city walls) to the town, to ensure the smooth and long-term functioning of his foundation, ^[275] at some point the income from this land was no longer sufficient to organise all the donation days properly. In 1463/1464, the distribution of bread had to be reduced from six to four dates, in order to be able to hand out a ration on each day to all those who wished to receive one, because the number of paupers had grown significantly. ^[276] In 1483/1484, this was even reduced to three dates, but only temporarily. ^[277]

Like the town, the Church also had to adapt its offerings when the number of paupers could not be sufficiently provided for with the income at hand. This happened with the foundation of canon Wessel Gijsensoen, who in 1407 or 1408 had donated four memorials per year. As the Church had to contribute money regularly to the foundation, which was not thought to be in accordance with the founder’s intentions, the donation dates were reduced to three during the time of mayor Gadert Scardenberg. ^[278]

If major investments were to be made or in times of crisis, the poor relief administrations had the option to take up money. There is one such case noted in the account book of St John’s Hospital in Wesel for the financial year 1427/1428. It was only after careful advice from the mayor of Wesel and the bailiff (balyer) of the Order of St John, that the warden, commander Everd Schechtken of the same order in Wesel, was allowed to sell a life annuity to finance the construction of a mill. ^[279] In Kalkar, however, the wardens apparently were not forced to resort to such means. When Kalkar’s poor relief wardens note capital as the price of an annuity, these sums appear to have been accepted as a favour to the purchaser of the annuity in question, rather than out of necessity. Sometimes, these capital sums are initially recorded as income in the account books, and in subsequent years the interest payments can be found amongst the expenses. However, in numerous, possibly in the majority of cases, the capital or the annuity in question was intended as a bequest to the poor, but, initially, the annual payments (or part of the pensions) went to the donors or those favoured by them for as long as they lived. ^[280] For example, in 1455, Mechtild van Vuerden had bequeathed an annuity of 7 ½ Rhenish fl, redeemable with 150 of the same fl, to the Large Almshouse. During her lifetime, she reserved 7 fl of the pension for herself. Later, her brother Wilhem Dijckman should be entitled to the same amount. After Wilhem’s death, her second brother Johan should receive an annual payment, but slightly downgraded to the amount of 6 Rhenish fl. Only after his death would the pension fall to the Almshouse completely. ^[281] In 1463/1464, the sum of 7 fl was paid to Mechtild by the poor relief wardens, but in 1473/1474, her brother Johan was already the recipient of the smaller amount (adjusted to the currency available, namely 4 ½ fl that year; 5 fl in 1482/1483; and again 4 ½ fl in 1493/1494). Since the last payment to Johan Dijckman is mentioned in 1500/1501, the poor had to wait patiently for a long time before they had the full benefit of the annuity. ^[282]

Similarly, in 1492/1493, the wardens received 60 Rhenish fl for an annuity of 3 ½ fl, to be paid to Lijssken van Vuyrden, who later stipulated that the poor should inherit half of her estate. She was probably related to Herman and Mechtild van Vuerden, the founders of the cloth donations, and for this reason alone would have been in a good position to buy an annuity from the poor relief administration. In 1493/1494 and in the following years, this pension is noted as paid. ^[283] Personal relations seem to have played a role, too, when the accounts of 1477/1478 and 1478/1479 record a pension of 3 fl and 48 kr paid to Stijn, a resident of the almshouse. ^[284] She had been chaplain Derick Moylantz’ handmaid and had already received a life annuity of 3 Rhenish fl and 5 kr in 1463/1464, and 3 Rhenish fl and 9 ½ kr in 1473/1474. ^[285] The fact that she was allowed this extra income is interesting. It was not enough to sustain her without further assistance, as it would have cost no less than 10 fl a year to support a shamefaced poor, ^[286] but it was nevertheless a considerable addition to her subsistence. Accordingly, when she died in 1479/1480, her estate yielded the comparatively large sum of 7 fl and 42 kr. In the following accounting year, the pension, in all probability, was no longer paid, so the capital might have been bequeathed to the poor. ^[287] In 1473/1474, Kalkar’s poor relief wardens paid perpetuities for life (meaning that some perpetuities donated to the poor had to be paid to other recipients during their lifetime) or life-annuities which totalled 23 ½ fl and 9 ½ kr, to four people: Johan Dijckman, the maid Stijn, Heesken Schadde, who was probably another relative of Mechtilt van Vuerden, and finally to Heilwich Hellingz. ^[288]

It is instructive, to ask how poor relief administrations behaved as creditors towards their tenants and other debtors in cases of unpaid rent, deliveries or services. In theory, this was regulated rather precisely by the requirements of the ordinances for the poor in Kalkar and Cleves. Kalkar’s poor relief wardens were not allowed to release anyone from paying pensions without obtaining the consent of the mayor, his advisors and part of the town council. ^[289] This would have been a necessary precaution, since the poor relief administration might have been expected to have some sympathy for its debtors and their difficulties. For instance, in the financial year 1488/1489, with the permission of the mayor and his gesellen, the wardens released Gebell Hongerwater from paying the annuity of 2 fl and 2 Bavarian fl for that year. It is interesting to note that, in 1490/1491, warden Peter in gen Ruwenhoiff could not obtain Gebell’s payment either, but she appears to have been able to meet her obligations in 1491/1492 and 1493/1494. ^[290] However, taking a closer look, it seems that in practice the rules were not always followed to the letter: In 1464/1465, a tenant was granted a year’s deferment for his rent, because he had to pay the so-called dike money (Deichgeld) – but he was urged to pay his other outstanding debts, which were four years old, in February of the following year. ^[291] In 1454, a number of debts were noted that had not been paid for a long time, but, had obviously not been collected or seized either. ^[292] Similarly, in 1471 and 1472, the same debt of Katryn Moerren was recorded – seemingly without taking legal action. ^[293]

In 1524, Derick Kerstens, the newly appointed poor relief warden, demanded from his predecessor Derick van Oirt a more detailed account for the year 1523, since he considered the present one inadequate. After Derick van Oirt had complied, Derick Kerstens was able to verify the accuracy of his predecessor’s accounting to his satisfaction. ^[294] In another instance, a remark made by the administrators of the cloth rents suggests that at times highly informal procedures were employed: Rijckwijn Verwer claimed, apparently without proof, that he was entitled to 1 fl and 36 kr from the previous year for cloth he had supplied, and he received this sum without further comment – probably because his reputation allowed for others to trust his request. ^[295] Even more astonishing is the fact that, in 1483, the administrators of the cloth fund did not do any accounting at all. Because the exact financial status could not be reconstructed, their newly installed successors who related this state of affairs in detail, simply started a new account. ^[296]

The hospital of St John in Wesel seems to have treated its tenants generously as a rule. For the financial year of 1461/1462, its account book records numerous arrears of rent and probably some pensions, several of which had accumulated over a long time, in some cases up to 22 years. In other cases, it was not known exactly over how many years the sums had accumulated, only that the debts had been outstanding for a long time. ^[297] In total, these amounts summed up to more than 115 ml of grain (115 ml, 3 bs and 2 sp), ^[298] as well as over 587 marks: 587 marks (equivalent to 146 ¾ Rhenish fl), 125 ß, 5 gr of Wesel, 5 old schilde, 1 Philipsschild, 9 old buddregers and 4 pounds of wax owed by 68 individuals. ^[299] Some of the sums mentioned are very small and the hospital’s generosity is not surprising, but for most of them the long patience seems astonishing at first. However, it can be assumed that the hospital’s warden had good reasons for his patience. In the long run, the warden may have considered it more important to keep leaseholds in use, and therefore made concessions to the tenants. ^[300] He seems to have been right to trust the hospital’s debtors because it is clear from the account book that quite a number of individuals owed money van ailds, meaning a debt from years past, but had apparently been able to pay their regular lease or pension for many years up to the current accounting year. In this respect, patience paid off not only for many tenants who remained solvent and viable, but also for the hospital which had, so to speak, invested in trust. ^[301]

Nevertheless, St John’s Hospital also prompted property seizures or distraints. Expenses for seizures can be found in the administrators’ account books, for example in the years 1427/1428, 1428/1429 and 1459/1460 or 1465/1466. ^[302] For the financial year of 1479/1480, Kalkar’s poor relief accounts describe such a procedure quite precisely. Because Kalkar’s poor were not receiving their rent from the Hartochs farm in Altkalkar, poor relief warden Johan Goessen seized this farm involving the court. ^[303] Apart from land or houses, movables and even animals could be seized in lieu of outstanding rents. ^[304]

Often, however, the poor relief administrators were very creative and to some extent helpful in finding solutions for the payment of outstanding debts. For example, they accepted a small cow from Derick Sanders as a down payment on his debt, its value being the equivalent of 3 ml of buckwheat. ^[305] In 1486/1487, when Claes on the Ezelberch estate was apparently unable to pay 16 ml of rye, the wardens did not confiscate the grain, but he had to pledge his sheep. They also decided to buy more sheep, which he had to feed, on behalf of the poor, until his debt was paid. In the same year, the children of van der Hoeven were released from paying 2 ml of rye. ^[306] In the case of Johan Kulman, the poor relief administration took the opportunity to acquire a new pension: In 1493, with the approval of the mayor and his gesellen, the wardens converted his outstanding rye and oat rent into an annuity so that the poor would receive 3 golden fl annually. As Johan Kulman’s debt was not quite as high as the purchase price of the annuity, the wardens paid him 10 fl current and 15 ½ kr in return. ^[307] The following year, Johan paid the stipulated 3 fl, but later in the same year, after his death, the wardens had pigs and other property seized from his estate because of his debts, although the Sonsbeck court and others intervened. ^[308] The commander of St John’s Hospital in Wesel noted repeatedly that a silver spoon was pledged for the late Hilgart van Heterden’s arrears. ^[309] It becomes clear that in the event of a debtor’s death, immediate action had to be taken to secure the outstanding amounts for the poor.

7 Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be stated that poor relief was a laborious and timeconsuming task that required well-educated men who enjoyed a good reputation. Although profit was not the primary aim of poor relief, but rather the provision of care for the paupers in accordance with the guidelines of the ordinance for the poor and the stipulations of donors, Kalkar’s late medieval poor relief wardens needed to act profitably and, in a way, be profit-oriented in order to finance the running of the hospital, the leprosarium, two almshouses and several donations. ^[310] As a matter of fact, they managed to secure funding, sometimes with rather creative solutions, and thus did not incur any permanent deficits throughout the Late Middle Ages. Regular legacies for the benefit of the poor, which continued throughout the 16^th century, also helped this cause. Caring for the poor was important to many people, so they contributed in the best way they could – not only because they saw it as an opportunity for investment in their spiritual salvation. ^[311]

However, quite a few of these donations were associated with costs for the poor relief administration, partly in order to receive them in the first place, partly because there were ongoing costs that had to be deducted from the income. Within the social fabric of the town, the poor relief administration also continuously functioned as a purchaser of goods and as an employer, contracting citizens on a permanent or temporary basis for a wide range of services. ^[312]

The poor were largely dependent on income from annuities, although rents, self-produced income and donations in kind were important as well. Expenses as well as the receipt of rents, pensions and other revenues had to be monitored closely; therefore, professional accounting was a necessity. Surplus could be invested in the acquisition of further perpetuities, which, however, had to be well secured in order to provide for the poor on a permanent basis. As a creditor, the poor relief administration had little leeway to be generous or patient, at least in theory – a fact that otherwise can be observed to an astonishing extent in late medieval everyday life. ^[313] In practice, they seem to have sometimes made exceptions, but not too often, because in the case of the poor, the individuals who had to be provided for had even fewer financial reserves than most debtors. Therefore, they were necessarily dependent on regular and timely support. On the whole, it seems, compliance with regulations was the rule and Kalkar’s poor relief administration appears to have lived up to the requirements. The audits’ results show that grain was always in good, at least sufficient, supply. Monetary reserves remained in most cases, but not always, and usually, it was possible to make up for the shortfall in the following year. Some institutions for the poor in the Lower Rhine region economised extremely well, such as the Offermannstiftung or the Arme-Mägde-Stiftung in Wesel, and also in Goch, where the successor institutions of the Männerhaus and Frauenhaus still exist today, managed by the Goch fraternity of Our Lady. ^[314]